Government surveillance is necessary in this date and age to protect not only our Freedoms but also our security.

England, the USofA, and the rest of the Free World have fought a long and hard battle against totalitarian, oppressive and stifling governments. And with the current trend of indiscriminate searching, monitoring and spying on its citizens, the Free World will stay free.

"England, the USofA, and the rest of the Free World have fought a long and hard battle against totalitarian, oppressive and stifling governments. And with the current trend of indiscriminate searching, monitoring and spying on its citizens, the Free World will stay free."

...it's regularly been abused by law enforcement, it has now been exported by the Brits and put in place by police departments around the world....

Well, of course, the Brits have always been the first to invent new technical concepts. The steam engine, the computer, the jet, radar, you name it.. In this case we wrote the book here, so I'm not surprised that we're exporting it.

actually 1984 and Brave new world are both amongst some of my favourite books of all time.

The thing I find interesting is to think about what Orwell would include today. I mean, he had no way to know that it would be possible for so few to do so much. Even his view screens that could not be turned off and acted as cameras.... envisioned a world where nobody knew if they were watching when. He never considered a world where that act doesn't require an active observer, a world where they can just always be recording and then go back and watch later. Such technology was too far out to even be a pipe dream.

Hell, 15 years ago people in the know talked about it like it was a pipe dream. I mean sure, we could envision it then, but, the data requirements for both movement and storage were impossible, only maybe as an outside chance, in the hands of a sophisticated group like the NSA, and even then likely more than they can handle.... and now....today.... we know its true.

Hell I remember people talking about TCP hijacking and types of MITM attacks that always ended with "yah maybe if you were the NSA and could be snooping on every backbone connection".... 15 years ago, that was fiction; but it had become imaginable.

I have to wonder what 1984 would include if it had been written in the 90s.

Lol.. the term computer came about because of what it originally replaced which was teams of mathmeticians who's job was to compute complex math problems. The original computer rooms consisted of tables, pencils, and paper (possible some slide rulers too).

Now i know you were think of the digital wonders we have now, but the only thing missing from a paper and pencil being considered a computer is the person computing. But don't let this fun fact take away from your point. Those and the abacus is far from wh

Strangely, the article seems to say that a stop on an unrelated issue that captured a violent criminal was, to quote, "a disaster". But don't unrelated stops result in charges and convictions all the time?

I don't want to downplay individual security and privacy concerns, but the article is clearly biased. There are no examples of crimes being prevented, yet ti is clear that many are. Without a balanced picture, how can any reasonable person form a reasoned judgment?

I don't want to downplay individual security and privacy concerns, but the article is clearly biased. There are no examples of crimes being prevented, yet ti is clear that many are. Without a balanced picture, how can any reasonable person form a reasoned judgment?

I would argue that it simply doesn't matter how many crimes were prevented, or of what type. There are certain prices that are simply too high to pay, and loss of freedom and privacy is one. This technology crosses the line where it is in itself far worse than anything it might prevent.

I'm sure that the Boston program is only down temporarily - stupid monkey with the wrench broke things. But never fear, it will be back again in the near future under a new guise... And when it does, I will keep singing that one Rockwell song every time I get in my car...

It's cynicism borne of past experience. Governments are not trustworthy. They never have been and they never will. Constant vigilance against abuses is the only way to stop it. Public apathy is why we're where we are.

Many agencies don't bother with this since there are dozens (at least) of private companies that drive around with scanners. I have not taken any time to follow up on suits and laws that were being proposed to protect people, so can't say for sure where these people can no longer operate. This was easy to resolve in Michigan with no front plate requirement, I simply started backing in everywhere. In CA where front plates are required, the only protection is a cover when parked.

The media as "public watchdog" is a myth. There may have been a time when that perception had some truth behind it, but those days are long since over. The primary function of the media in today's world is to serve as the government's primary propaganda outlet.

Tracking the movements of vehicles is quite a bit different than tracking cell phone conversations. There is no expectation of privacy when driving a vehicle on public roads. Operating a vehicle (at least in the US) is heavily regulated, requiring registration of the vehicle, insurance, and licensed operators. In my area, in addition to the traffic cameras there are license plate scanners on most police vehicles. They scan and record the plates of vehicles as the police drive around town, popping up an alert if they get a "hit" on a vehicle with issues (suspended registration, insurance, or involvement in a crime).
You're also tracked via tolls (EZ Pass in my area) and gasoline purchases (credit card data), but the police don't have easy access to that data without a subpoena.

If there's no expectation of privacy on public roads, then why do people get freaked out if they notice someone following them? There is some expectation of privacy on public roads, especially as you move away from cities.

If there's no expectation of privacy on public roads, then why do people get freaked out if they notice someone following them?

For the same reason people don't worry that people can see them when they are out in public, but freak out when they notice someone staring at them. You are being singled out and focused on, and probably not for something good.

I fully expect that governments not record my movements with cameras in public places.

They aren't recording YOUR movements, they are recording the movements of a licensed piece of equipment on roadways built and maintained using public funds.
BTW, I don't condone this data warehousing, I am pointing out the huge different between NSA tracking of electronic communication and government observation of physical movement through open public spaces. They are VERY different situations and the headline implies they are alike. Debating the recording of vehicle movement should be done independentl

And a GPS tracker planted on your car isn't tracking YOUR movements, its tracking the movements of the govt owned GPS tracker. LOL at your distinction.

Also, tell me where in the Constitution this is stated as something the govt is to do. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the constitution knows its duties are enumerated, not infinite.

A GPS is attached to a specific car. Recording every vehicle passing through a toll booth is not targeting your vehicle or any other vehicle. There is a difference.

The government does lots of things that are not in the Constitution. Check the 10th amendment.
Not supporting the recording of all this vehicle data, but I still stand by my assertion that it's quite different from NSA recording and logging of private calls.

Although admittedly the 4th and 9th would seem to apply in this specific circumstance, strict constructionism can obviously be taken too far as a general rule. "...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." is obviously a bit vague on the divisions.

HUGE difference between observing a vehicle's location and searching the vehicle. BTW, police do not need a warrant to search your car if they observe an illegal item on the dashboard or passenger seat. If the item is in plain site they can stop you and then search the rest of your vehicle without any warrant.

HUGE difference between observing a vehicle's location and searching the vehicle.

HUGE difference between the statement "no expectation of privacy when driving a vehicle on public roads" and reality.

BTW, police do not need a warrant to search your car if they observe an illegal item on the dashboard or passenger seat. If the item is in plain site they can stop you and then search the rest of your vehicle without any warrant.

Plain 'sight,' and yea, that's called "being in the commission of a crime," and when you're in that state you forfeit a lot of rights. But that has nothing to do with OP claiming that there's "no expectation of privacy when driving a vehicle on public roads," unless you add the addendum, "while you're blatantly breaking the law."

No, I do not accept your argument. I see no legitimate reason for the police to track innocent people for the purposes of solving crimes that have not happened yet. It would be one thing if they had plate recognition software that was scanning for a list of stolen vehicles but that's not whats happening. They're creating a log of where everyone is at all times of the day, just in case they find out later they were doing something illegal. Reality is not a corporate network and the government are not our sys

There is no expectation of privacy when driving a vehicle on public roads.

Sure there is. Now, I don't mean to say that I have an expectation of privacy for any given trip, but I certainly have an expectation of privacy when it comes to someone gathering months or years worth of data on where I go, when, how fast, who with, etc, etc, etc.

There is no expectation of privacy when driving a vehicle on public roads.

This is the tricky bit, where a line needs to be drawn. There is a difference between "no expectation of privacy" and "expectation of unencumbered, constant surveillance".

Lets say I was walking down a public high street, having a conversation with my girlfriend. I have no expectation of privacy there either, but I would feel somewhat violated if in ten years time I was presented with a written transcript of what we were saying to each other on that day.

Sure, anything people do in public could be observed. But those are the keywords: "anything could." Not "everything will." And certainly not "everything will be observed and then get stored forever in an instantly-searchable government database!"

I agree, but it's difficult to argue that it's Orwellian to monitor that which could be visually monitored if only you were a savant. Optical license plate scanners on cop cars are about the least offensive thing that's going on right now, and it's not like it's difficult to defeat; you could for example mock up a temporary registration tag and put it in your back window, or a fake dealer tag and put it in place of the license plate — just be sure to mock a real one. I mean, if somehow you had some go

I would argue that while there isn't an expectation of privacy while on the roads there could be a good argument for anonymity on on the roads which is what you loose with mass 24x7 government surveillance of your movements.

This is a CLASSIC case of where technology advances past the law. Police surveillance traditionally meant two detectives following around the perp in an unmarked car and drinking lots of coffee. The implicit man power commitment was in itself a limitation on how far the privacy of citizens could be infringed. Now that this limitation has been rendered obsolete, you can expect the courts to follow the norm of imposing a new limitation in the future.

There is no expectation of privacy when driving a vehicle on public roads.

There is also a big difference between tracking a specific vehicle (e.g. the police have reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity) and tracking everybody. Generally speaking, the principle in play here is: If the cops don't have a reason to suspect you of a crime, they should be leaving you completely alone. And if they catch you doing one crime (e.g. speeding), that does not give them a legitimate reason to immediately suspect you of another (e.g. human trafficking).

I think you are combining two things. First is whether or not a police officer can "run your plate". "running a plate" was supposed to, and until very recently did require, probable cause. The "why" on this is because running said plate returns much more data than just "is the car stolen". IANAL and won't claim to know each State's position on this. That said, I have heard from Police in my area that even if they get a hit for expired tags you can not be pulled over without some other violation. Yeah,

I only agree there is "no expectation of privacy" for a car in the sense that cars are not invisible. If my car is parked outside Starbucks, then anyone on the street can see it, and it is not a breach of my privacy to say "I saw Sir Garlon's car parked at Starbucks this morning." This is perfectly reasonable.

It is one hell of a leap from there to "it's perfectly OK for the government to track someone's vehicle 24/7." Pretending that "no expectation of privacy" in the first sense is congruent with "no expectation of privacy" in the second sense is totally disingenuous. As Jules from Pulp Fiction said, that "ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same fuckin' sport!"

But the police aren't tracking your car 24/7. That's not what the ANPR system is.

ANPR cameras tend to be at petrol stations (where they are mainly installed to catch drive offs), on major motorways (to catch insurance/tax dodgers and any cars flagged as "interest" - this includes criminal flags as well as stolen vehicles) and in some police patrol cars (for the same reasons).

The scaremonger site linked in the article is trying to paint this as some sort of abuse. The cameras are nowhere near as "all encompa

If you convert the video to license plate numbers (OCR) then you can put that in a database with the time. This allows searching for cars easily and quickly, and allows you to work out the probable route the car used.

Right, but my point is that ANPR cameras are far too thinly spread to make any meaningful route plans of the target car, other than "we know the car went on the M1 at this time, so it's possibly in this town or this city", or "it passes this camera every day, so this motorway is probably on his commute" (the cameras are not trained on non-highway roads, except where they're in police cars and those are obviously not static).

Unless it gets pinged by another camera it's unlikely to be seen for some time. As I

Oh stop with the "no expectation of privacy" crap. Your argument is basically saying it's OK to stalk someone. Yes that's what you are saying, if someone leaves their house it's OK to record their every movement, who they are with, where they go, for how long. You are saying that if there was enough money it would be OK to have a police cruiser at every residence so that when you leave you home you can be followed and watched.

I never said it was OK. I do not support this recording, but I did say you should not privacy when driving a government registered vehicle on government maintained roads and bridges while in possession of your government issued license.
I guess you also expect to fly in a plane anonymously, and cash your paycheck anonymously as well.
LOL at you posting as anonymous and calling me a coward. Have fun in your fantasy world of anonymous driving.

I believe it's because of the proliferation of ANPR and other cameras that I had a major reduction of my motor insurance premium this year. Society pays for the crimes of the minority, so using technology to take the crooks off the road pays dividends to all.

To be fair I think it's a number of factors ranging from dealing with uninsured drivers by stating all cars must either be insured, or declared off the road and linking that up with insurance/DVLA databases to automatically pay a visit to cars registered with neither insurance nor off the road, through to the EU ruling that insurers can't discriminate based on inherent physical traits like sex, through to more work being done to cut down

Actually, if 3rd party insurance were provided by the state and funded from fuel taxes, we could ensure everyone was insured, everyone's premiums were lower, save a fortune on IT and not have to track anyone.

Of course that would be too convenient and remove authoriteh from too many jobsworths.

I believe it's because of the proliferation of ANPR and other cameras that I had a major reduction of my motor insurance premium this year. Society pays for the crimes of the minority, so using technology to take the crooks off the road pays dividends to all.

I won't even try and remove the cloud of ignorance hovering all around you that helps you think you're not paying for that entire traffic camera system through the many, many other taxes you pay, but feel free to enjoy the 15% off your motor insurance premiums in exchange for a 50% increase in your medical insurance costs. After all, those traffic cams do a damn good job in keeping track of just how many times you drive to stuff your face with junk food, which they turn around and sell that information to your healthcare provider. Even in socialized medicine, those costs are buried. Enjoy your taxes.

Where's the "-1 hilariously wrong" mod?

The UK spends less that half the GDP per capita on healthcare compared to the USA, which is where I assume you're from.

Those costs may be "buried" but they're still *enormously* cheaper than the alternative. Plus, the bonus effect of not going bankrupt when you get sick, and being able to change jobs without having to worry about losing coverage.

" Another man, who spoke to journalists but chose to remain anonymous to prevent further harassment, says he was stopped more than 25 times by police under a variety of pretences after he had attended a peaceful local protest against duck and pheasant shooting. He finally made a formal complaint after police armed with machine guns pulled him over during an evening out with his wife."

Apart from the invasion of privacy, what a complete waste of resources, maybe some budgets need to be reduced in order to cut down on waste.

" Another man, who spoke to journalists but chose to remain anonymous to prevent further harassment, says he was stopped more than 25 times by police under a variety of pretences after he had attended a peaceful local protest against duck and pheasant shooting. He finally made a formal complaint after police armed with machine guns pulled him over during an evening out with his wife."

Take two scenarios: Police records all known locations of the car of the "duck and pheasant shooting protestor". When a "duck and pheasant shooter"s house is burnt down, they find that the protester has been near that house repeatedly and he becomes an arson suspect.

And scenario two: "Duck and pheasant shooting" protester is stopped 25 times, including by police with machine guns.

How can you not know? They are either both unacceptable, or they are both perfectly fine.

If you enjoy living in a free society, they are both clearly unacceptable.

If you lack confidence that you have the ability to manage your own life, and would prefer that a totalitarian regime make all of your decisions for you, then you should support the surveillance in both cases.

" Another man, who spoke to journalists but chose to remain anonymous to prevent further harassment, says he was stopped more than 25 times by police under a variety of pretences after he had attended a peaceful local protest against duck and pheasant shooting. He finally made a formal complaint after police armed with machine guns pulled him over during an evening out with his wife."

Apart from the invasion of privacy, what a complete waste of resources, maybe some budgets need to be reduced in order to cut down on waste.

"'I'm telling you the whole truth! They stopped me for no reason other than attending a pheasant shooting protest!"

it caught them. Admittedley they should have been tracked and caught before, but the fact that it caught them makes the argument that we would be better off without it a bit difficult. we would have had yet another atrocity with blood-soaked muzzies congratulating themselves on following the teachings of muhammad.

The police still kill more than them.. lightning strikes on golf courses also.

Go back to your EDL rally.

Lets take the USA. 2,977 people killed in the 9/11 attacks. Each year 37 people are killed by lightning strikes [noaa.gov]. In the past it was as high as 70. Even if we assume that all of these occurred on golf courses you are way off. As for police killings - if you mean in all time the answer is "so far". Looking at Wiki lists they kill about 400 each year. The muzzy threat is growing.

In Britain (which does not have tropical storms) only 3 people a year [bbc.co.uk] are killed by lightning strikes and 15 people [bbc.co.uk] have been killed

In November, some guy at the local mall went to several shops and asked the young women on staff to help him find stuff on lower racks. He then took some "upskirt" pictures with his camera phone. When he got noticed, he ran out of the mall.

Police reports in December give the follow up. Mall security went back to the cameras and found the guy. They tracked him outside the mall running to his car. The parking lot camera got his license plate number. License plate number was sent to the local police, who picke

I attended a conference on XML back in roughly 2004. A police technical architect was describing the ANPR system. He pointed out that the current deployments of the time were entirely local and not joined up nationally - but went on to say that it wasn't a very big step to do this, allowing the tracking of vehicle movements on a national scale. He looked embarrassed and uncomfortable as he said this.

I got the very strong impression at the time that he was trying to give a warning on where this technology was heading.

Buses have gps trackers, internal cameras recording all journeys to hard disk, recorders on the vehicle management systems etc. They can replay who got on/off and every press of the brake/accelerator the driver makes. The latter is used for insurance purposes to prove how the driver responded to accidents etc.

To be fair, labour were just as bad - a lot of the survelience law was passed by them. The only real difference between the left/right in the UK is which way they shaft you. they both shaft you though.

Just as bad as the "GOP haters" here who criticize them for surveillance, then turn a blind eye when the dems do it. Remember Khrushchev: "Politicians are the same all over, they promise to build a bridge, even where there is no river" (only time politicians tell the truth is when criticizing politicians)

> while engaging in the statistically most dangerous everyday activity in the Western world